> > > On Friday, January 31, 2014, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This discussion is regarding amq and the webconsole. > > > I am aware of that. > > > >> The state of hawt.io really has no bearing on the discussion as it is >> not >> part of amq. >> > > I think you missed my point - see below > > > >> There are solid reasons amq needs a console. > > > I'm not convinced at all - jolokia is enough -but let's move on
Why move on - this is the important part of the discussion, is it not? > > > >> Please leave hawt.io out of the discussion. > > > I only mentioned hawtio as a perfect example to refute JamesC's weak > argument that there is any technical reason for forcing the old > abandoned JSP console to be on the same release schedule and svn directory > as the java broker. If there wasn't a weak argument to refute, I wouldn't > have said anything. > > Chill out - its ok to mention technologies that don't have an apache PMC > when debating a technical issue. We're not yet living in Apache Aparteid > where we can only refer to projects of a certain governance colour > No worries - we're all good. Let me rephrase what I was saying - the existence of hawt.io has no bearing on a discussion of technical merit in removing the existing webconsole from activemq, so let's please leave that out of the arguments for or against such a change. Please feel free to talk about Hawt.io as much as you like otherwise! Just be aware that if it's done in a way that distracts from the discussion, I'll likely say something. Nothing personal - just trying to keep the discussion focused and moving forward. Honestly, I thought JamesC was asking a great question and was disappointed to not see a great response. Cheers! > >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:00 PM, "James Strachan-2 [via ActiveMQ]" < >> [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: >> > >> > LOL. Nice try James. >> > >> > Check out the current plugins for hawtio: >> > http://hawt.io/plugins/index.html >> > >> > we've worked pretty well with every version of pretty much every >> decent >> > open source software library from camel / cxf / activemq / karaf / >> tomcat / >> > jetty / osgi / git / fabric8 / osgi / jmx / quartz - by being a stand >> alone >> > separate project. And the hawtio ActiveMQ tooling is way beyond >> anything >> in >> > the old console. Open source projects can actually, you know, >> collaborate. >> > >> > There's really no technical reason to force a 22Mb legacy turd into >> the >> > ActiveMQ broker project or distro. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 31 January 2014 18:41, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> > > Right, but you were at the mercy of what was currently exposed. >> > > Adding new functionality would involve instrumenting it in the >> MBeans >> > > (if it's not already there of course). That's the key reason they >> > > shouldn't be separated. >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Robin KÃ¥veland Hansen <[hidden >> email]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > I will try write up some thoughts on this later, but I have a >> pretty >> > > strong >> > > > opinion that the responsibility of the broker is only to offer an >> API >> > > that >> > > > a web console may use. At my current client we wrote a web console >> using >> > > > the jmx api. This lets us use a different JVM for the webapp, >> minimising >> > > > the risk that an error in it will affect the service of the most >> critical >> > > > piece of infrastructure on our platform. It also lets us monitor >> and >> work >> > > > on messages on brokers that are not in a network from the same >> webapp. I >> > > > don't know what things are like now, but this was difficult back >> in >> 5.5. >> > > > >> > > > If this is interesting to people I can probably share a lot of >> thoughts >> > > and >> > > > ideas about the web console. >> > > > On Jan 31, 2014 6:14 PM, "Hiram Chirino" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> The core ActiveMQ is all about message passing. The skill set >> needed >> > > >> for that is a bit different than the one need to design and build >> > > >> beautiful, modern web applications. Perhaps folks have just been >> > > >> focused in areas where they feel they can contribute best to. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Carman >> > > >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > > >> > Out of curiosity, why did work stop on the old console? Did >> folks >> > > >> > just lose interest? Why was it neglected? >> > > >> > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Hiram Chirino < >> > > [hidden email]> >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> >> As far as why the old console is a headache take a peek at the >> CVE >> > > >> >> reported against ActiveMQ in the past. Notice most deal with >> the old >> > > >> >> console: >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-19047/Apache-Activemq.html >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> It's also lacking a modern a responsive look /w automatic >> status >> > > >> >> refreshing that most modern web apps are implementing today. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, artnaseef <[hidden email]> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> >>> Reading through the arguments for and against removal of the >> current >> > > >> console, >> > > >> >>> or moving it to a subproject, is getting confusing. >> Positions >> are >> > > >> hard to >> > > >> >>> understand, and options unclear. >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> I propose getting the problem clearly and concisely defined, >> then >> > > >> discuss >> > > >> >>> the merits of each position, and then go back to proposing >> > > solutions. >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> So, what are the problems? >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> -- >> > > >> >>> View this message in context: >> > > >> >> > > >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105.html >> > > >> >>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> -- >> > > >> >> Hiram Chirino >> > > >> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. >> > > >> >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com >> > > >> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> -- >> > > >> Hiram Chirino >> > > >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. >> > > >> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com >> > > >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > James >> > ------- >> > Red Hat >> > >> > Email: [hidden email] >> > Web: http://fusesource.com >> > Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews >> > Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ >> > >> > Open Source Integration >> > >> > >> > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the >> discussion >> below: >> > >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677218.html >> > To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email >> [email protected] <javascript:;> >> > To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined, >> click here. >> > NAML >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677221.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > -- > James > ------- > Red Hat > > Email: [email protected] > Web: http://fusesource.com > Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews > Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > Open Source Integration > > > > > _______________________________________________ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677244.html > To start a new topic under ActiveMQ - Dev, email > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from ActiveMQ Console - let's get the problem defined, > visit > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=4677105&code=YXJ0QGFydG5hc2VlZi5jb218NDY3NzEwNXwtMjA1NDcyNjY5MQ== -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Console-let-s-get-the-problem-defined-tp4677105p4677246.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
